Comment by kelseyfrog

Comment by kelseyfrog 6 months ago

5 replies

Have we done a RCT on polonium ingestion? All I'm asking for is a consistent epistemological threshold. Justifying belief based on what amounts to a scientific "vibe" isn't rational knowledge independent of its veracity.

consumer451 6 months ago

I am not sure that you are arguing in good faith.

Click the first link from 1964, look up the dosage in rems. Then look up the lethality of that amount of radiation, noting that the effects of radiation are largely cumulative.

If you want to find something actually interesting in all of this, read this piece about this industry reaction.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18633078/

Or, generally try to learn where the Polonium appears to come from in the process. That is super interesting and also covered in those google results.

  • kelseyfrog 6 months ago

    I've conversed on this before. Inconsistent justifications for beliefs undermines science.

    It's no different than insisting that belief in a drug's efficacy rests on RCTs. I'm legitimately unfamiliar with polonium ingestion trials so I don't have a justification for believing that it is harmful.

    I want to be very clear that I'm not arguing that polonium isn't harmful - I believe it is. I just don't have justification for that belief. I believe that it's important to understand the difference between true beliefs and justified true beliefs.

    • lolc 6 months ago

      Do I accept as fact that polonium is radioactive? Yes. Do I accept as fact that radioactive elements are poisonous to humans when absorbed? Yes. Do I accept as fact that Polonium from inhaled smoke particles will be absorbed? Yes.

      Which part do you see as an unjustified belief?

      • kelseyfrog 6 months ago

        The logical positivism part. It brings with it a host of assumptions. Of course, you're free to believe in them, but I don't think logical positivism is justifiable. That's generally why science today is built on falsifiability rather than verifiability.

        • lolc 6 months ago

          I understand this thread started with you objecting to the assumption that polonium is harmful to humans. Going so far as to suggest that anything short of an RCT is not enough.

          Yet even if I read RCT results concluding polonium to be harmless, I would distrust that conclusion, not my understanding.

          Somehow we're doing this epistemology thing differently. It feels to me like you live in a world of impossibly high standards. Or you just like to argue hypotheticals.